Test: Method of Reasoning - GMAT MCQ

(A) Jessica changed her major from psychology to biology. Her GPA went from a 3.6 to a 3.1. Jonathan wants to maintain a high GPA, and he is doing very well in economics. Even if he wants to be a physicist, he shouldn't change his major to physics.

• The flawed reasoning in this argument is that it assumes Jonathan's situation is parallel to Jessica's situation without providing sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the claim. The argument incorrectly assumes that because Jessica's GPA dropped after changing majors, Jonathan should not change his major even if he is doing well in economics. This flawed reasoning matches the flawed reasoning in the original argument.

(B) Charlie is an attorney who specializes in real-estate law. He recently learned from his friend Myrna that there is an opening in a firm that specializes in corporate real estate, a highly lucrative sub-field. He is going to put in an application at the new firm.

• This argument does not contain flawed reasoning similar to the original argument. It simply presents Charlie's decision to apply for a job in a specialized field that aligns with his expertise. There is no faulty logic or flawed reasoning evident in this argument.

(C) Beth is an advertising sales executive for a major magazine that targets women ages 30 to 45. She has been offered a position with Seth's advertising firm that promotes a line of sports equipment. If she leaves her new position, she'll increase her salary by 25 percent. Beth has decided to leave her secure position and go with Seth's firm.

• This argument does not contain flawed reasoning similar to the original argument. It presents Beth's decision to leave her current position for a higher-paying job. While there may be potential risks or considerations associated with changing jobs, the argument does not present any faulty logic or flawed reasoning.

(D) Alex has recently moved his software company to a new location in a downtown urban setting. Sophie is thinking of moving her dress shop to the same block, but the last occupant in the location was also a dress shop, and it failed. Sophie is not going to move because she thinks a dress shop can't do well in that location.

• This argument does not contain flawed reasoning similar to the original argument. It presents Sophie's decision not to move her dress shop to a particular location based on the failure of a previous dress shop in that area. While there may be considerations regarding market demand and competition, the argument does not involve faulty logic or flawed reasoning.

(E) Ella owns a gym on the top floor of a high-rise building in a major metropolitan city. Noah, the landlord of the building, has offered Ella a larger space where she can expand her gym in a building around the corner from her current location, where a gym previously owned by David went out of business. Ella declined to move because she fears losing her clientele.

• This argument does not contain flawed reasoning similar to the original argument. It presents Ella's decision not to move her gym to a different location based on the fear of losing her clientele. While the decision may involve various factors, the argument does not exhibit faulty logic or flawed reasoning.

In conclusion, the argument that uses flawed reasoning parallel to the original argument is (A) Jessica changed her major from psychology to biology. Her GPA went from a 3.6 to a 3.1. Jonathan wants to maintain a high GPA, and he is doing very well in economics. Even if he wants to be a physicist, he shouldn't change his major to physics.

The question presents a conversation between David and Lynn regarding the evolution of humans from an aquatic ancestor. David argues that humans did not evolve from an aquatic ancestor based on the fact that chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, do not swim or spend much time in water. Lynn responds to David's argument.

Let's analyze each answer choice:

(A) agreeing with him but adding counterarguments from opponents of that view. This answer choice suggests that Lynn agrees with David's argument but adds counterarguments from opponents. However, Lynn's response does not indicate agreement with David's argument. Therefore, (A) is not the correct answer.

(B) conceding that his evidence is valid but drawing attention to other evidence that refutes his argument. This answer choice states that Lynn acknowledges the validity of David's evidence but presents other evidence that refutes his argument. Lynn's response does not directly refute David's argument but provides additional information to consider. Therefore, (B) is not the correct answer.

(C) initially agreeing with him but then changing her mind by drawing upon comparisons. This answer choice suggests that Lynn initially agrees with David but changes her mind by drawing upon comparisons. However, Lynn's response does not indicate agreement with David's argument or a change of mind. Therefore, (C) is not the correct answer.

(D) ignoring it and attacking the implications of his facts to support her counterargument. This answer choice states that Lynn ignores David's argument and attacks the implications of his facts to support her counterargument. However, Lynn's response does not attack the implications of David's facts. Therefore, (D) is not the correct answer.

(E) acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion. This answer choice suggests that Lynn acknowledges the facts David uses to support his argument but offers additional information without making a conclusion herself. This accurately describes Lynn's response. She acknowledges David's point about chimpanzees not swimming but provides additional information about the layer of fat under our skin and its potential benefits in water. Lynn's response does not conclude whether humans evolved from an aquatic ancestor or not. Therefore, (E) is the correct answer.

In conclusion, Lynn responds to David's argument by acknowledging the facts he uses to support his argument but offering additional information to consider without herself making a conclusion. This aligns with answer choice (E).

The goal of the law is to protect employees from secondhand smoke, but it does not prohibit smoking in people's own homes. This information helps us evaluate the claims provided.

(A) The law will be interpreted in a way that is inconsistent with the intentions of the legislators who supported it. This claim cannot be rejected based on the given information. The law's interpretation is not discussed, so we cannot determine whether it aligns with the legislators' intentions.

(B) Supporters of the law believe that it will have a significant impact on the health of many workers. This claim is consistent with the information provided. Since the law aims to protect employees from secondhand smoke, it suggests that supporters believe it will positively impact their health.

(C) The law offers no protection from secondhand smoke for people outside of their workplaces. This claim cannot be rejected based on the given information. The law's scope is limited to workplaces, so we don't have information about protection outside of these locations.

(D) Most people believe that smokers have a fundamental right to smoke in their own homes. This claim cannot be rejected based on the given information. The information provided does not address what most people believe about the fundamental rights of smokers in their own homes.

(E) The law will protect domestic workers such as housecleaners from secondhand smoke in their workplaces. This claim is consistent with the information provided. The law's goal is to protect employees from secondhand smoke, and domestic workers are typically considered employees. Therefore, it can be inferred that the law will protect domestic workers in their workplaces.

Based on the analysis, the claim that can be rejected is (E), as it aligns with the information given.

(A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review: In the letter, the author accuses Mr. Duxbury of belittling their book in order to promote his own book. By questioning Mr. Duxbury's motives, the author is suggesting that the unfavorable review was biased and unfair. This method of argument attacks the credibility and integrity of the reviewer, rather than focusing on the content of the review itself.

(B) Attacking the book on the same topic written by the author of the review: The author does not directly attack the book written by Mr. Duxbury. Instead, they focus on Mr. Duxbury's motives and actions. While they mention that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, the letter does not provide any criticism or negative comments about his book.

(C) Contrasting her own book with that written by the author of the review: Although the author mentions that Mr. Duxbury published a book on the same topic, they do not explicitly compare or contrast their book with his. The letter does not provide any details or arguments about why the author's book is superior or different from Mr. Duxbury's.

(D) Questioning the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review: While the author indirectly questions the judgment of the author of the unfavorable review by accusing him of bias, the main focus is on Mr. Duxbury's motives rather than his judgment.

(E) Stating that her book should not have been reviewed by the author of a competing work: The letter does not explicitly state that her book should not have been reviewed by Mr. Duxbury or anyone with a competing work. The author's main concern is with Mr. Duxbury's alleged biased motives rather than the reviewer's eligibility.

Given these explanations, it is clear that the method of argument used in the letter is (A) Attacking the motives of the author of the unfavorable review.

The argument states that the fire that destroyed the Municipal Building started before dawn and ended late in the afternoon. It further claims that anyone in the vicinity of such a fire would have noticed it. The argument then concludes that Thomas, who went from his apartment to the library that morning, must have seen the fire because there is no way for him to get to the library without passing the Municipal Building.

(A) presenting several different pieces of evidence each of which by itself would allow the conclusion to be properly drawn: This choice does not apply because the argument does not present multiple pieces of evidence.

(B) establishing that one thing occurred by showing that another thing occurred and that this second thing was enough to ensure the occurrence of the first thing: This choice accurately describes the reasoning technique used in the argument. The argument establishes that Thomas went from his apartment to the library and that there is no way for him to do so without passing the Municipal Building, thus concluding that he must have seen the fire.

(C) justifying a claim that a view held by someone else is false by explaining why that view, despite its falsity, is a tempting one for that person to hold under the circumstances: This choice does not apply because the argument is not justifying the claim that Thomas's view is false based on his temptation to hold that view.

(D) relying on evidence that a certain kind of event has regularly occurred in the past as a basis for concluding that an event of that kind occurred in the present case: This choice does not apply because the argument does not rely on past occurrences of fires to conclude that a fire occurred in the present case.

(E) drawing a general conclusion about what is possible in a certain kind of situation on the basis of firsthand experience with one such situation: This choice does not apply because the argument does not draw a general conclusion about what is possible based on firsthand experience.

Therefore, the correct answer is (B) establishing that one thing occurred by showing that another thing occurred and that this second thing was enough to ensure the occurrence of the first thing. The argument establishes that Thomas went from his apartment to the library and that this route would have required him to pass the Municipal Building, thus implying that he must have seen the fire.

(A) That the sales department taken by itself is not critical to the company's success as a whole.

• This answer choice does not directly address Ed's criticism. Ed is not arguing whether the sales department is critical or not, but rather pointing out that there are other departments that are also important for the company's success.

(B) The ambiguity of term "highest priority".

• This answer choice does not directly address Ed's criticism either. While it points out a potential ambiguity in Ravi's statement, it does not specifically critique the assumption that it is impossible to give the highest priority to all departments.

(C) That the departments other than sales are more vital to the company's success.

• This answer choice aligns with Ed's criticism. Ed is suggesting that there are other departments besides sales that are vital to the company's success, indicating that they should also be given high priority. Therefore, this answer choice is a potential candidate.

(D) An absurd consequence of its apparent assumption that a department's necessity earns it the highest priority.

• This answer choice directly addresses Ed's criticism. Ed is pointing out the flaw in Ravi's assumption that a department's necessity automatically earns it the highest priority. By highlighting the absurd consequence of this assumption, Ed effectively criticizes Ravi's argument. This answer choice is a strong candidate.

(E) That Ravi makes a generalization from an atypical case.

• This answer choice does not directly address Ed's criticism. Ed is not arguing about the generalization made by Ravi, but rather pointing out that there are other departments that are also important for the company's success.

After evaluating each answer choice, we can see that the most relevant and accurate criticism made by Ed is captured in answer choice (D). Therefore, the correct answer is (D).

Frieda makes a recommendation that every building should have a lightning rod to prevent major damage caused by lightning. Erik counters her recommendation by stating that faulty wiring and overloaded circuits cause more fires and damage to equipment than lightning does.

To identify why Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on, we need to analyze the options:

(A) The answer choice states that Erik's response does not show that the benefits that would follow from Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. This means that Erik does not provide any evidence or reasoning to suggest that having lightning rods on buildings would be a disadvantage or would cancel out the benefits of preventing major damage. This is a valid criticism of Erik's response, as he fails to address the potential benefits of Frieda's recommendation.

(B) This answer choice states that Erik's response does not offer any additional way of lessening the risk associated with lightning. While this may be true, the question is specifically asking why Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on. The fact that Erik doesn't offer an alternative solution to lessen the risk of lightning is not necessarily a flaw in his response to Frieda's recommendation. Therefore, (B) is not the correct answer.

(C) This answer choice suggests that Erik's response appeals to Frieda's emotions rather than her reason. However, there is no evidence in the question stem to support this claim. Erik's response seems to be based on logical reasoning rather than emotional manipulation. Therefore, (C) is not the correct answer.

(D) This option states that Erik introduces an irrelevant comparison between overloaded circuits and faulty wiring. Upon closer examination, we can see that Erik's comparison is indeed relevant because he is trying to establish that faulty wiring and overloaded circuits are more significant causes of fires and equipment damage compared to lightning. He is arguing that addressing these more common causes should take priority over Frieda's recommendation. Thus, (D) is not the correct answer.

(E) This answer choice claims that Erik confuses the notion of preventing damage with that of causing inconvenience. However, there is no evidence in the question stem to support this claim. Erik's response focuses on the comparison of different causes of fires and damage, rather than the inconvenience or prevention of damage. Therefore, (E) is not the correct answer.

By process of elimination, the correct answer is (A). Erik's response fails to establish that Frieda's recommendation should not be acted on because he does not show that the benefits of Frieda's recommendation would be offset by any disadvantage. He simply argues that other causes of fires and damage are more significant, but he does not address the potential benefits of preventing damage from lightning through the use of lightning rods.

(A) Correct, the opposing candidate provided an additional statistic (increase in number of retirement parties and people moving out of state) that undermines the conclusion drawn by the incumbent.

(B) Incorrect. Nowhere did the opposing candidate claim that the incumbent's statistic is factually incorrect. All that he meant was that the incumbent's statistic does not represent the entire picture. Eliminate B.

(C) Incorrect. The opposing candidate's statistic contrasts on the incumbent's statistic, and not extend/shed more light on it. Eliminate C.

(D) Incorrect. The incumbent did use a statistic that was relevant to his conclusion. Opposing candidate's disagreement with the conclusion is entirely different a matter than the relevance of the choice of incumbent's statistic in the incumbent's conclusion. Eliminate D.

(E) Incorrect. The opposing candidate challenges the incumbent's conclusion. He does not comment on whether the statistic chosen supports that conclusion. Eliminate E.

The point at issue between Mayor A and Councillor B is what they disagree on. Let's analyze the answer choices:

(A) Roseville will build a courthouse in 1992: This is not a point of disagreement between Mayor A and Councillor B. Both statements discuss the cost and potential savings of building a courthouse but do not directly address whether Roseville will build one in 1992.

(B) $37 million in 1992 dollars is equivalent to $26 million in 1992: This is not a point of disagreement either. Councillor B states that Mayor A's financial reports indicate the equivalence between the two amounts, so they agree on this point.

(C) Mayor A is responsible for the city's financial reports: The responsibility for the financial reports is not discussed in the statements, so it is not a point of disagreement between Mayor A and Councillor B.

(D) Roseville actually needed a new courthouse between 1982 and 1992: This is the main point of disagreement between Mayor A and Councillor B. Mayor A argues that the courthouse was needed in 1982, while Councillor B suggests that the delay in building the courthouse has been financially beneficial for Roseville.

(E) Roseville would have expended $4 million to maintain a courthouse from 1982 to 1992: This is not a point of disagreement either. Mayor A claims that if the courthouse had been built in 1982, Roseville would have saved at least $4 million by 1992.

Therefore, the correct answer is (D) Roseville actually needed a new courthouse between 1982 and 1992, as this is the point at issue between Mayor A and Councillor B.

Only two pieces of information are given about Airline A's standing room "seats" proposal. First, that it is geared toward increasing revenue in order to counteract declining profits. And second, that, since the proposal relates to passenger safety, it must be approved by the Federal Aviation Administration. Airline A must have concluded that the cost of implementation of its proposal is less than the revenue that the new seats will generate.

(A) Since Airline A knows that its proposal would have to comply with safety standards, it must have concluded that the cost of compliance is worth it. In other words, the only way for Airline A to achieve its goal of increasing profit is to implement ideas that will generate more revenue than they cost. Airline A must therefore have concluded that the standing room only "seats" meet this criteria.

(B) The statements in the passage imply nothing about whether Airline A believes that the Federal Aviation Administration will approve the proposal. Although Airline A must believe that the proposal has a chance of being approved (otherwise it's unlikely to have proposed it), the airline might have proposed its specific plan knowing that it might not be approved or, that it might have to be changed in certain ways.

(C) Airline A's goal is simply to "counteract declining profits" caused by the high cost of jet fuel. This does not mean, however, that the proposal must fully mitigate the cost of jet fuel. As long as the proposal increases revenue without a corollary increase in cost, it will in some way (even if it's relatively small) counteract declining profits.

(D) The passage does not mention any other ways that Airline A has considered increasing revenue. Therefore, it is impossible to conclude anything about Airline A's perception of its standing room "seats" proposal to any other ideas.

(E) The statements in the passage do not address Airline A's view regarding the safety of the standing room only "seats". It is very possible that Airline A views its proposal as safe and sees no conflict between passenger safety and increasing revenue, much less that it has made any determination about the relative importance of these two issues.